Aznaran v. Church of Scientology

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1!

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

»!

28;

/

3

4

VICKI J. AZNARAN and
RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA g£p q £ $92

HUB LAW OFFICES

) CV-S8-1786-JMI (EX)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

) MOTION TO TRANSFER THIS
) ACTION TO THE UNITED STATR^

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, et
al. ,

) DISTRICT COURT
) DISTRICT OF TI

)

)

>

)

Defendant(s). )

.)

AU6 28(992

1 8V ,•

CLERK. U.S. OISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, et al.’s (hereinafter

DEPUTY

"Defendants") motion to transfer this action to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas is
hereby GRANTED.

2. Defendants contend that the Court should transfer this
action to the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a). Defendants base this contention on the assertion that
transfer is proper and that it would make the trial of this

matter more convenient to the parties and the witnesses.

. .Y

• ^ -- *

4 ?

I I

...

. J,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

22

I

I

According to Defendants, many of the claims raised by Plaintiffs
| are more than 15 years old and predate the very existence of
Defendants. Thus, Defendants argue that since all of these old
events occurred in the Northern District of Texas, all of the
remaining witnesses and records concerning the occurrences can
only be found there. Defendants list 15 "key witnesses" who
they contend are required to testify in Defendants' case and who
are not subject to the subpoena power of this court, but could
be subpoenaed in Dallas. Defendants also contend that J

Plaintiffs who have been residing and working in the Dallas area

I

since 1987, seek substantial damages for mental and emotional !

distress; thus, defendants contend that witnesses who arc best

i

equipped to testify about Plaintiffs' mental and emotional j

condition are all in Dallas, and not in Los Angeles, where

l

according to Defendants, Plaintiffs are "virtually anonymous." j

In fact, according to Defendants, only two of Plaintiffs' 11
claims have their basis in facts alleged to have occurred in
California and the witnesses to those alleged occurrence are
Plaintiffs and Defendants' staff members. On the strength of

i

this contention, Defendants indicate that they are willing to

I

stipulate that they will make staff who are percipient witnesses j
to the matters at issue herein available at a trial in the <

Northern District of Texas at Defendants' expense since they j

believe that such an expense would be far 1css expensive than
persuading unwilling witnesses to come to trial in California !

from Texas. Defendants emphazisc that they seek to return the

2

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

matter tn Plaintiffs’ home district to make it a more convenient
and less expensive experience for Plaintiffs themselves.

Finally, Defendants further argue that this diversity case could
have been brought in the Northern District of Texas originally
since both Plaintiffs reside there and since the claims arose
there.

3. A district court may transfer any civil action to any
Other district or division where it might have been brought for
"the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interests
of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

4. Generally, the purpose of § 1404 is "to prevent the !

waste 'of rime, energy and money' and ’to protect litigants, j

witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and
expense.’" Van Dusen v. Barrack . 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S .Ct.

j

805,809, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964), quoting Continental Grain Co. v.
Barge FBL-585 . 364 U.S. 19, 26-27, 80 D.Ct. 1470, 1474-1475, 4

L.Ed.2d 1540 (1960) .

5. When deciding the issue of transfer, the proper
procedure to be employed is a factually analytical, case-by-case

i

i

determination of convenience and fairness. Xd. at 622.

6. The relevant factors to be considered in the trial

court's exercise of its wide discretion in deciding transfer |

I

are: j

1. Plaintiff’s choice of forum;

2. Relative ease of access to sources of proof;

3. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of

!

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unwilling witnesses;

4. Cost of obtaining attendance of unwilling witnesses; I

5. Possibility of a view of the premise, if appropriate;

6. All other practical considerations making trial easy,
expeditious and inexpensive;

7. Enforceability of a judgment if obtained; !

8. Relative congestion of court dockets;

9. Relationship to the litigation of the community from

i

which jurors will be drawn;

10. Familiarity of the forum with the state law governing a
diversity case.

Gulf Oil V. Gilbert . 330 U.S. 501, 508-503 (1947).

In the present case, the Court, having read and considered
Defendants' motion to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Plaintiffs'
opposition thereto. Defendants' Reply and all supporting !

documents filed therewith, finds that the above-named factors
weigh in favor of transferring this action at this time. First,
many of the claims Plaintiffs make do not have their basis in
tacts alleged to have occurred in California; indeed, it appears
that many of the claims arose in Texas. Second, Plaintiffs
themselves reside in the receiving district. More

significantly, many of the witnesses who will testify at trial .
live there. Additionally, Defendants indicate that they are

l

willing to stipulate that they will make staff who are
percipient witnesses available at a trial in the Northern

i

I

1
I

I

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

District of at their expense. Although the fact that this

case has been pending for a considerable length of time weighs
against transfer, there is merit to Defendants' argument that
their delay in bringing the motion was at least partially caused
by the fact that the nature of the proof they would have to
produce was largely dependent on the resolution of the motions
that the Court has addressed over the years. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs' argument that transfer would eliminate the Court
most familiar with Scientology-related litigation, in general,
weighs in favor of transfer rather than against it. Any
perceived "Scientology expertise" relied upon by Plaintiffs in
Choosing this forum is raisyuided. The judges of this Court do
not, by any means, consider themselves "Scientology experts."

In any event, since a trial court should attempt to avoid
intimate knowledge about the parties that may color its judgment
in a case, this argument only lends force to Defendants'
contention that transfer is appropriate. Finally, no pre-trial
or trial date is currently set in this matter. Moreover, in the
Court's opinion, every conceivable motion has been made and
ruled upon and this case should be fully prepared to proceed to
trial. Defendants' request for a Status Conference may be made
to the receiving Court in the Northern District of Texas. In
light of the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants'

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

l

27 !

28

I

morion and TRANSFERS this action to the United States District \

i

. . i

Court for the Northern District of Texas.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

O'

n .

7 />

/ /

JAMES M. IDEMAN
United States District Judge

I

I

6